#!markdown
Sorry about your back. However, that doesn't excuse you from not reading and
understanding things, and is not a license to put words in people's mouths. I
never called YOU lazy, and didn't say I'm better. If you're going to respond
to a comment, don't be a douche and reinterpret it to your convenience.
If DISABILITY is an issue, then trail access should be managed like other
forms of access where special accommodations are required. We don't just let
anyone race down the sidewalks on motorized scooters. If you have a clear
challenge, sure go ahead. We have systems for that. But using the difficulties
by some to sell scooters to people to race down the sidewalks is a garbage
marketing tactic, or to have able-bodied people cite disabilities as a reason
to motor down sidewalks is crap reasoning, and cooptation of a legitimate
social issue. IF DISABILITY is really an issue, we would see a movement to
secure recognition of ebikes for people with de facto disabilities as a means
to ensure equal access to outdoor resources. I'm ALL for that. Instead, we see
mass marketing of overweight powered up mountain bikes, for anyone and
everyone that wants to hit the trails as hard as they want, with no regard for
the impact, or implications for other user groups. Now that is selfish, and
that is close minded.
As for your elitist comment- that's laughable. You didn't read the part about
huffing and puffing on the blue runs.
You have offered nothing to this conversation than a continued attempt to mix
"disability arguments" with "just ride and let these people have their fun"
angles. Which one is it? Are we talking about accommodating people with
physical challenges? Great, let's do that. But that doesn't mean cutting open
all the trails for ebike use, without talking about the implications of lazy
(there I said it) meatsacks, hooting and hollering down the trails on their
overweight bikes, going up the down trails, and wreaking havoc on the current
balance of peace among motorized-vs-nonmotorized activity that we have
struggled to achieve. We have trails and areas that are currently designated
for non-motorized use. We also have agreements among user groups and clubs to
guide motorized users away from certain trails. When does one person's
personal situation trumps all that work, and should we just cut it all open
for you AND anyone else that want to ride an ebike? Really, I hope that is NOT
your suggestion. Not sure, because you've mixed your points together a bit,
and it's hard to tell.
This is not about "having fun in a slightly different way". This is about how
do we accommodate truly disabled people, while simultaneously protecting trail
access, preserving the trails themselves that have been hard to build and are
increasingly hard to maintain, and preventing motorized-vs nonmotorized
conflict. When I look at the pro-ebike arguments, I see lots of efforts to
wiggle between the cracks of these issues and get more motors on more trails,
regardless of the implications.
Aug. 11, 2016, 8:10 a.m. - jdt
#!markdown Sorry about your back. However, that doesn't excuse you from not reading and understanding things, and is not a license to put words in people's mouths. I never called YOU lazy, and didn't say I'm better. If you're going to respond to a comment, don't be a douche and reinterpret it to your convenience. If DISABILITY is an issue, then trail access should be managed like other forms of access where special accommodations are required. We don't just let anyone race down the sidewalks on motorized scooters. If you have a clear challenge, sure go ahead. We have systems for that. But using the difficulties by some to sell scooters to people to race down the sidewalks is a garbage marketing tactic, or to have able-bodied people cite disabilities as a reason to motor down sidewalks is crap reasoning, and cooptation of a legitimate social issue. IF DISABILITY is really an issue, we would see a movement to secure recognition of ebikes for people with de facto disabilities as a means to ensure equal access to outdoor resources. I'm ALL for that. Instead, we see mass marketing of overweight powered up mountain bikes, for anyone and everyone that wants to hit the trails as hard as they want, with no regard for the impact, or implications for other user groups. Now that is selfish, and that is close minded. As for your elitist comment- that's laughable. You didn't read the part about huffing and puffing on the blue runs. You have offered nothing to this conversation than a continued attempt to mix "disability arguments" with "just ride and let these people have their fun" angles. Which one is it? Are we talking about accommodating people with physical challenges? Great, let's do that. But that doesn't mean cutting open all the trails for ebike use, without talking about the implications of lazy (there I said it) meatsacks, hooting and hollering down the trails on their overweight bikes, going up the down trails, and wreaking havoc on the current balance of peace among motorized-vs-nonmotorized activity that we have struggled to achieve. We have trails and areas that are currently designated for non-motorized use. We also have agreements among user groups and clubs to guide motorized users away from certain trails. When does one person's personal situation trumps all that work, and should we just cut it all open for you AND anyone else that want to ride an ebike? Really, I hope that is NOT your suggestion. Not sure, because you've mixed your points together a bit, and it's hard to tell. This is not about "having fun in a slightly different way". This is about how do we accommodate truly disabled people, while simultaneously protecting trail access, preserving the trails themselves that have been hard to build and are increasingly hard to maintain, and preventing motorized-vs nonmotorized conflict. When I look at the pro-ebike arguments, I see lots of efforts to wiggle between the cracks of these issues and get more motors on more trails, regardless of the implications.